I want to write a series of articles about conflict. Very often during sessions we have to talk about the basics of conflict management. But before sharing my knowledge and thoughts about conflict, I see the need to discuss the idea of ​​conflictlessness. It is no secret that in the modern education system little place is given to conflict; moreover, conflict is perceived as something uniquely negative, and conflict-free behavior is elevated to the rank of a virtue and a sign of good upbringing. And such conflict-free people often become clients of psychologists. Of course, we can now start debunking non-conflict as an ideal, but I think it’s worth trying to understand where this idea comes from, what its nature is. One of the reasons is undoubtedly a direct benefit for parents: the less the child conflicts and the more he agrees with everything, the more comfortable he is, therefore and it is worth instilling in him that to be good means to be conflict-free. The same thing happens in groups, in kindergarten, at school, it is more convenient for educators and teachers if children do not conflict and stupidly obey the routine. The child absorbs this avoidance of conflicts further in adult life he tries to adhere to this and teach it to his children. That is, the idea of ​​non-conflict is a direct social order. Of course, in an ideal society, this would probably really be a virtue, but as history has shown, such utopian communities always became totalitarian, in which there was little room for the individual. But still, the idea of ​​conflict-freeness has deeper roots. Here I would recall the philosophy of dialogism of Martin Buber, who described such a phenomenon as a “personal meeting”. Buber distinguished two directions, intentions, orientations of the human personality, I-It, and I-Thou. When a person is turned to things, to the It, then of course he has a lot of interests, ideas related to the It, how he would like it and how he thinks it should be. And there is a whole field for conflicts if a person collides with the ideas of another person. But when it comes to a personal meeting, about addressing another person, I-Thou, then, as Buber wrote, no means matter, and therefore there are no reasons for conflicts. The ideal dialogue that Buber described is conflict-free. If you look at non-conflict in this light, then it is a truly great value, probably the most important in the life of every person. This is the same unconditional acceptance of another, absolute love, which poets write about and which every child, woman, man dreams of. But it is worth noting that the I-It is also important for a person. That is, a person lives in a world where non-conflict as a value and conflict as a necessity must somehow coexist. And at first glance, from the point of view of simple logic, it seems impossible. But the world is not only dialogical, but also dialectical. Dialectics makes the conflict-free I-Thou and the conflict-prone I-It compatible. Continuation: https://www.b17.ru/article/274972/